Subject: Pedophile Case

 In the second hour of your September 18 radio show, you made a valiant
 attempt to blame the President of the United States for the outcome of an
 appeal in a case involving a pedophile, under the "trickle down" theory.
 (The "trickle down" theory was disproved during the administrations of its
 chief proponent, Ronald Reagan.) I realize that the only understanding you
 have about our criminal justice system is gleaned from old episodes of "Law
 and Order," but you are insufficiently informed about this case, which is
 why you were unable to offer intelligent commentary about it.

 In the case you discussed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 affirmed the order of the district court in granting the state defendants'
 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the defendants' actions did
 not increase the risk of significant harm to the plaintiff [the little girl]
 because they merely placed her back into the situation from which they had
 originally retrieved her [the custody of her father]; even assuming that the
 state had acted affirmatively to place her in danger, the state's actions
 did not rise to the level of egregiousness required to support a claim for a
 substantive due process violation. The appeals court cited a Supreme Court
 decision as determining whether the facts in this case would give rise to
 liability for a constitutional tort: DeShaney v. Winnebago County
 Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

 In DeShaney, Chief Justice Rehnquist (universally recognized as
 conservative) delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices White,
 Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia (universally recognized as conservative), and
 Kennedy joined. Justice Brennan (universally recognized as liberal) filed a
 dissenting opinion, in which Justices Marshall (universally recognized as
 liberal) and Blackmun (universally recognized as liberal) joined. This was
 the holding: The respondents' [Winnebago County Department of Social
 Services] failure to provide the petitioner [a child who was subjected to a
 series of beatings by his father] with adequate protection against his
 father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component
 of the due process clause. Please note that in this case, the "liberal
 mentality" was dedicated to the rescue of a child. No known homosexuals --
 with or without agendas -- were involved.

 I realize that the above must be all gibberish to you, so I'll simplify it:
 it was thanks to the "conservative mentality" that the little girl could be
 served up to her father's pedophile "friend." By the way, there's no
 indication in the case of any evidence that the pedophile was the father's
 homosexual lover, as you implied. So in trying to ascribe blame to
 homosexuals and to President Clinton in this matter, you're simply
 exploiting this little girl, just like her father. With you, it's all about
 "the children," always and everywhere, isn't it?